The accusation that police changed the statement from the witness may be false or even deliberately exaggerated.
Not extactly that he is blanket full of shit or did i miss something?
But Nils onky asked Sweden to respond to the question, which they didnt do.. not even a short: sorry you got the wrong end of the stick there. Which given the attention of the case seems weird.
It also doesnt really say anything about his treatment in the uk the lack of gurantee not to be extrodited, the leaking of accusations to the press, lack of aninimity for the accused etc.
And to be clear sweden didnt respond to any of Nils' questions, why? Is the UN really just a joke? If so isnt that still really bad?
Please feel free to expand on why you dont trust a single thing he says, but at the moment your comment doesnt seem justified.
There's absolutely no evidence that he is "full of shit" in that link. There's a reasonable question about what exactly that one exchange refers to, but that is one small part of the total set of claims.
But even if one assumes that this is "routine" and that it "just" refers to adding information, it's shocking - it reveals a lack of audit trail of changes.
The key part of this claim - that the alleged victim didn't sign the statements - has been known since the case originally broke, and basically means that there is no justifiable basis for trusting the statement, even before the exchange about modifications raises the concern about provenance and audit trail.
But add on the exchange, and whether or not the police officers involved did anything wrong, it means the content of these statements can not be trusted because they could have modified them.
